On WTNPH's Belief That Trump Should Get Cred With The Left For Lying

The Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart seems to think that Donald Trump should get "cred" with the Left for lying. As per this commentary.

Willis Hart: On Trump Versus the Left. I find this whole thing a bit perplexing in that if you take the time to look at his positions, he's actually kind of a leftist himself. For example, the dude's a) a protectionist, b) a believer in the graduated income tax (the first $50,000 tax free, as I recall), c) a person who wants an enormous infrastructure project (bigger than Obama's, for Christ!), d) a person who while he denigrated Obamacare has seeming signed on to something virtually identical, and e) someone who wants to establish a brand new entitlement relative to child care and family leave. No, it's not a down-the-line leftist agenda but it's certainly close enough to where you would think that the left could at least work with the guy, no? Oh and, yeah, he eviscerated George W. Bush. That alone should give him some cred. (3/25/2017 at 4:19pm).

Apparently Willis does not realize that Trump LIES. And he lies constantly. As Thom Hartmann says, Trump won by running as a Progressive Progressive (in many respects). As Willis points out. But Democrats (and many others) know that Trump lies. He says what he thinks will get him what he wants at the time. He makes promises with no intention of following through, unless doing so is easy.

Like with canceling the TPP. That took no work. All he had to do was not move forward with it. Devising a national health care bill, on the other hand, requires work. Trump promised "repeal and replace" because it got him votes. Then he pushed a garbage bill that he did not understand, then gave up after 18 days (when, as Lawrence O'Donnell points out, Obama's bill took 18 months).

BTW, Trump did NOT "sign on to something virtually identical". The AHCA (American Health Care Act) was a not a health care bill. It was a tax cut bill. As the NY Times pointed out "the beneficiaries would be the richest Americans who for years have complained that the Affordable Care Act unfairly burdened them with the responsibility of subsidizing insurance for the poor".

The objective of the ACA was providing health care for most Americans (nixed by the Supreme Court which tossed the Medicaid expansion). The objective of the AHCA was CUTTING TAXES [1]. People would have lost coverage under it. 24 million, if I recall correctly. "Virtually identical" my ass.

A believer in the graduated income tax? So what? What we know is that Congress will move on tax cuts targeted at the wealthy. Now that "repealing" Obamacare has failed. I'm sure that's at the top of their agenda (What Trump and the GOP Can Agree On: Tax Cuts for the Rich).

The enormous infrastructure project is another giveaway to the wealthy, as Trump proposes funding it by giving "$137 billion in federal tax credits to private investors who want to back transportation projects". Also, we're talking about projects on which "tolls or user fees" could be charged. So, we pay (via tax breaks) for investors to build the infrastructure, but they own it and make money off it. Sounds like a great idea. If you're a wealthy investor looking to buy infrastructure (that the government pays you back for via tax credits). Then sit back and collect the profits. Clearly a bad deal for taxpayers and end users (people who will be paying the tolls and user fees), though.

As for the "brand new entitlement relative to child care and family leave", CNN Money describes the proposal as a "gift to the rich [because] 70% of the benefits will go to families that make $100,000 or more. And 25% will go to people earning $200,000 or more". Big surprise.

BTW, even though Willis obviously does not realize it, Trump only "eviscerated" gwb because he thought it would harm Jeb's candidacy. I mean, Trump SUPPORTED the Iraq war (despite his lies). He's on tape saying so (on Howard Stern). Once Jeb dropped out Trump's "lie" accusation (re gwb and WMD) changed to "I don't know" (SWTD #326).

Work with him to give taxpayer money to the already wealthy? WHY the f*uck would Democrats work with Trump to accomplish that? And "cred" comes from ACTION, not words. Words that are mostly lies. If Trump wanted TARGETED tax cuts (nothing for the wealthy), was to do the infrastructure right (raise taxes to pay for it) or offer tax breaks/credits to anyone (not just the well off) for child care/leave? Then yeah, Democrats would work with him. Heck, I think Dems would work with Trump on lowering the corporate income tax (if all loopholes were eliminated and it was estimated that revenues would go up as a result). And he agreed to go after offshore tax havens and inversions (although Trump doesn't know what a corporate inversion is).

But I don't see that happening. Especially given the FACT that if he was to put forward proposals that appealed to Democrats... Ryan and the GOP controlled Congress would turn on him. In any case, that Dems won't work with him is NOT "perplexing", unless you're dumb enough to not realize that Trump lies constantly. But apparently the Willis is dumb enough. Even though he implies he knows Trump is a liar.

On "Trump Is a Liar" Versus "the Media Is Biased and Corrupt"... In a saner time we could have entertained both notions. Not today, though. Not with the Fox Newses, MSNBCs, Salons, Breitbarts, and Huffington Posts of the world delivering what can only be called pure partisan pablum 24/7 and a public that is all-too willing to lap it up. No Sir. (2/23/2017 at 11:15pm).

WTF? Maybe Willis thinks Trump only lies sometimes? I mean, clearly Willis thinks Trump is telling the truth re his A to E list. As opposed to lying. Because that's what he does. Lies about EVERYTHING. Although I think he might be "protectionist". Even though he has his Trump crap manufactured outside the US. And brings in labor on work visas (or illegally) to work in his businesses.

Doesn't mean he couldn't be a hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches. I mean, following the rules as they are doesn't mean you can't be in favor of changing the rules. Even if the new rules will cost you. MAYBE. But I doubt it. Given the fact that everything else Willis THINKS the Left can work with Trump on - he's lying about.

Trump "actually kind of a leftist himself"? Via his LYING WORDS only. No "Leftist" action except cancelling the TPP (yet). And that didn't require any Leftists to work with him to accomplish. I'm sure some (Bernie Sanders, other members of the Progressive caucus) would have been willing to if it had been necessary.

BTW, the people with DO give Trump cred for lying? That would be his base, AKA the #trumpdupes. Everyone else knows he's a liar who lies about everything. Even most of those who voted for Stein or Johnson. Excepting idiots like the Hartster, who think Trump can be believed on ANYTHING. I guess.

Notes
[1] According to estimates made by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, the AHCA would resulted in tax breaks totalling 600 billion, most of which would go to the wealthiest Americans. (Poltifact).

Video: Thom Hartmann: If Trump Actually Ran As A Republican, He Wouldn't Have Won The Election! Thom talks about how Donald Trump used populist ideas to gain support among voters. Published 11/17/2016 (5:54).

OST #202

AGW 97% Consensus Figure Based On 4 Sources... According To The Voices In Willis Hart's Head

File this commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in the WTF category. I mean, if you can make sense of what he writes (re his severe climate change denialism)? I say you're guessing. Because that's all anyone can do re the following nonsense.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that One of the Sources that NASA Used to Substantiate its Fully Discredited 97% Consensus Figure Was an Op-Ed Piece by Some Socialist, Feed-the-Leviathan Historian (Naomi Oreskes) that No One Has Been Able to Replicate Yet (the Others Being Two College Papers and a Cartoonish Hit-Piece by that Delusional and Impudent Nonscientist/Jerk Who Founded "Skeptical Science")... Well, being that these are the same "scientists" who've constantly "adjusted" their statistics to make them fit their theory, we probably shouldn't be shocked. I sure as hell don't give it much credence. (10/4/2016 AT 4:34pm).

The key phrase in WTNPH's commentary is "the others being". Meaning he's wrapping it up as far as the "sources" go. NASA used just 4 sources to substantiate it's "discredited" 97% consensus figure is what this idiot is saying.

This is a "fact", even though Willis cites zero sources. And, get this, the very next day Willis Hart criticized "Alex Jones's multiple unnamed sources", and asked "do the voices in his head qualify?". Good question, I say.

I've really got to wonder if Willis isn't getting these facts concerning the AGW consensus via the voices in HIS head. Given the FACT (a real/sourced fact) that the 97% consensus figure was arrived at after looking at 12 THOUSAND "peer-reviewed climate science papers" (as per Skeptical Science).

Note the use of the term "peer reviewed". A historian is not a peer of a scientist. Neither are college students. Obviously a non-scientist is not a "peer" of an actual scientist. Although, maybe you could say all these unnamed (3 of 4) authors could be classified as "academics", and therefore academic peers. But I seriously doubt any papers from college students were included in that survey (of 12 THOUSAND papers). But I can't say for sure, given the fact that Willis doesn't source his claims.

So, given that he often declines to cite a source AND I can't comment on his blog (and ask him), I'm going to guess. And my guess is that "the voices in his head" are very likely his source. But even if there is a source (and he simply forgot to say what it is), I'm still not going to give what he says much credence. In fact, I say HELL NO, I absolutely don't buy his ludicrous claim of 4 sources, and give his claims ZERO credence.

BTW, if NASA looked at 4 sources to arrive at a 97% consensus figure, then at least 1 of those sources must have disagreed that global climate change is occurring and is human-driven. But 3 out of 4 is 75%, not 97%... so his numbers don't even add up.

Am I shocked? No, not really... given the fact that the Hartster is a total moron.

OST #180

Does Willis Hart Subscribe To The Cockamamie Economic Theory Known As Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism?

Either the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart subscribes to it, or admires/used to admire another blogger he thinks subscribes/subscribed to Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism (the truest/purest form of Libertarianism).

Willis Hart: On Going from an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian Who Worshiped Ayn Rand and Who Thoroughly Despised the Progressive Left to Somebody Who Essentially Signs-Off on Every Cockamamie Leftist Notion Under the Damned Sun from Demonizing Fossil Fuels to Playing the Race-Card to Demagoguing on Income Inequality, Class Warfare, etc... That is exponentially far from normal behavior and, yes, when you throw in the whole Jersey McJones alter-ego, it's damned near psychotic. (4/19/2016 AT 5:25pm).

OK, so Willis previously said "I am hardly an anarcho-capitalist". But I also do not recall Rational Nation (the individual Willis is referring to) voicing any support for anarcho-capitalist Libertarianism (AKA neo-feudalism on steroids). Fact is, when I linked to the WTNPH commentary on the RNUSA blog, the Rational guy said "I am not now, nor have I ever been an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian".

So neither RN nor Willis was/is an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian? No, I'm not buying it. Not in regards to Hart. For a few reasons. First, (as I already noted) anarcho-capitalism is the purest form of Libertarianism. And, as Noam Chomsky pointed out "the idea of free contract between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke". But it's a joke I know Willis believes. Although, instead of a joke, in a Libertarian's mind this is how the world should be - and would be a Randian utopia (because punishing the poors, whom Ayn Rand hated with a passion, is one of the primary goals of the sick ideology known as Objectivism).

Secondly, we do know that Willis Hart hates Progressives with a passion. So with this praise of who he believes Rational Nation used to be, he transfers to Nation his hatred. And (I'm theorizing) that we aren't dealing with just one instance of transference. It's everything Willis attributes to (the imaginary) past Rational Nation that really applies to him.

Which means he is the Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian. Perhaps he changed his mind? Given the fact that Hart is a person who has been getting more and more radical over time, I find it quite likely that he has "progressed" to the most insane form Libertarianism.

And Willis is likely with Rand in her hate for the poor (as well as anyone who believes in democracy and disagrees with the idea that society should be organized to benefit the plutocrats). And he most likely agrees with Ayn Rand's views concerning the less fortunate (she thought they should die. A feeling she held so strongly that she killed millions of poor "moochers" and Statists in her revenge porn* novel "atlas shrugged").

Why? Because he said Rational Nation worshipped Rand (it's transference again. Remember I said everything Hart said he used to admire in the Rational guy is, in reality, qualities he admires in himself). Willis Hart is the guy who is an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian who worships Ayn Rand and who thoroughly despises the Progressive Left.

And he also very frequently whines constantly about "demonizing fossil fuels" (AKA acknowledging the scientific community's consensus on climate change), "playing the race-card" (acknowledging racism exists not just as a fringe issue, but as a systemic problem) and "demagoguing on income inequality" (not bowing down and worshipping at the feet of the wealthy as he does).

Conclusion? The behavior being exhibited by the Harster is exponentially far from normal and, yes, when you throw in the whole Jersey McJones alter-ego delusion (Willis believing that the blogger Jersey McJones is a sock puppet of Rational Nation), it's almost certainly a sign of psychosis.

(*Revenge of the overtaxed plutocrats).

Image: A simple depiction of why Libertarians love the psychotic anarcho-capitalism idea; it's a system under which worthless scumbag poors are forced to submit to their wealthy superiors... or die.

OST #135

Willis Hart Racist WTF: Objecting To Getting Raped Is Racist (A Great Many Leftist Feminists In Europe Don't Say)

White European feminist women want Brown Muslim men to rape them. Or they're actively refusing help from White males (if available) in preventing/stopping these rapes... because that would be racist. That this is the case is a "fact" according to the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart. Although he makes this claim sans attribution/sourcing.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that a Great Many Leftist Feminists in Europe Would Seemingly Rather Get Raped by an Illiterate, Violent, and Egregiously Medieval Piece of Shit Scumbag Savage than Have One of Their White European Male Counterparts Defend Them in that that Would Be Racist... And the slow-bleed European suicide continues. (4/9/2016 AT 2:57pm).

WTF? And this is a "fact"? If it is, then where is the attribution or source that proves a "great many" "European feminists" hold this opinion?

Yeah, I do not FOR ONE SECOND buy this load of horse manure. Sounds to me like something Willis likely read on World Net Daily.

And, wanna bet that "egregiously medieval piece of shit scumbag savage" is code for (a brown) Muslim man? I mean, how the hell else could a WHITE WOMAN objecting to getting raped be "racist" otherwise?

The only thing truthful/accurate here IMO is that this is yet another of Willis Hart's racist rants. Misogynist too, in that Willis (yet again) expresses his disdain for feminism. And Leftists. Apparently the collision of the 2 (feminism and Leftism) can NOT result in anything but incomprehensible stupidity.

BTW, this sounds familiar, doesn't it? I refer to the "they're raping our women" mindset.

The Deadly History of "They're Raping Our Women" (Slate article excerpt) Racists have long used rape to defend their worst racist violence. Amid his [6/17/2015] rampage at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston SC - killing 9 people - 21yo Dylann Storm Roof reportedly told churchgoers, "You rape our women, and you're taking over our country, and you have to go". Of the assertions in that statement, it's the first that has a long, deadly history. In the late 19th century, rape was a frequent justification for racist violence. "To palliate this record ... and excuse some of the most heinous crimes that ever stained the history of a country", wrote journalist Ida B. Wells-Barnett on lynchings in her pamphlet Southern Horrors, "the South is shielding itself behind the plausible screen of defending the honor of its women". Indeed, Wells points to a host of Southern newspapers that defended "lynch's law" with reference to an alleged epidemic of black-on-white rape. In one editorial, published by the Memphis Daily Commercial, editors declared, "The commission of this crime grows more frequent every year", and, "There is no longer a restraint upon the brute passion of the Negro". As Wells-Barnett would show, however, there was no substance to the charge. "The world knows that the crime of rape was unknown during 4 years of civil war, when the white women of the South were at the mercy of the race which is all at once charged with being a bestial one"... (6/18/2015 commentary by Jamelle Bouie).

African Americans are members of a "race [that was] once charged with being a bestial one". Sound similar to the Willis tirade of pejoratives? A (brown) Muslim man is a "egregiously medieval piece of shit scumbag savage".

BTW, remember when I said that Willis' post sounded like his response was to something he read on WND? I was guessing. But after inputting "Muslim men raping European women", I found the TOP result to be a WND article titled "Europe's Muslim Rape Epidemic".

OK, so do I need to do any more Googling to see if there is any validity to Willis' claims, or can I assume that he's full of shit without doing any more research? I'm going with the later and NOT the former. Sorry, but I think the fact that WND is fear mongering on this issue tells me all I need to know about what's going on here (it's flat out racist demagoguery).

OST #131

On People Who Worry That "One World Government" Is Coming

Apparently this is a worry that concerns the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On the Notion that World Government Would Eliminate the Need for War... Total horse-shit. a) There would still be the possibility of a civil war (and, boy, would it ever be a dandy) and b) even if there wasn't a war, we all know for a fact that governments worldwide have slaughtered far more of their own people (democide - Google it) than they've ever killed through warfare, and that if we ever decided to give these fiends ultimate power they would more than happy to up the ante. Please, wake up, folks. (3/19/2016 AT 2:54pm).

Frankly, I find it "horse-shit" that anyone would author such a post. One world government? Does Willis REALLY think that is something he needs to worry about? What's next? A series of commentaries about how the Illuminati and Freemasons are planning the New World Order at the Bilderberg conference?

BTW, as far as "democide" goes, as per the person who "revived and redefined" the term "democratic institutions—even partial ones - reduce the likelihood of armed conflict and all but eliminate the risk that it will lead to geno/politicide" ("demo" being ancient Greek for "people").

As Wikipedia points out, examples include "the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State, and Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward, which resulted in a famine killing millions of people". So what we should be fearing are totalitarian dictatorships (if a "one world government" were ever to come about it isn't guaranteed that it would not be a democracy).

However, I think that "democide" is really Libertarian code for "government bad". ANY kind of government. Even democracy. Which Libertarians also hate, btw. Because (Libertarians believe in kingdom rather than democracy.

Not kingdom in the traditional sense of the word, where the progeny of the King inherits rulership, but a system under which corporations are kingdoms and the CEO rules. This is the kind of organization Libertarians prefer. A "meritocracy" of the wealthy (wealth being proof of a person's right to rule). Although most of us refer to this as plutocracy.

And you think the plutocrats don't kill people? I'm more worried about what would happen if these fiends gained more power (via further deregulation and by "allowing them to keep more of their own money"). I'm positive they would more than happy to up the ante. And here I think is something that is well within the realm of possibility, unlike with the Hartster's one world government delusions.

OST #122

Did "They" Lie About Eliminating Tariffs & Replacing Them With The Income Tax?

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has referred to some "they" that lied about replacing tariffs with an income tax. A "they" he apparently hates very much (caution: Willis expresses his hate via disgusting vulgarities and profanities).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Federal Income Tax (as Proposed in 1913) was Supposed to Be a Replacement for the Tariff (to the Point of Eliminating it)... Yeah, the cock-suckers lied. Big surprise, huh? (5/7/2015 AT 10:12pm). Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Income Tax Started Off in 1913 at 1% (with Only the Rich Paying it)... Folks have compared it to boiling a frog; the fact that when you put a frog in boiling water it jumps out but when you put it in cool water and warm it gradually it croaks (sorry). Same with taxes and the economy. P.S. It also must be stated that the income tax was supposed to be a trade-off for eliminating the tariff and, so, yep, they fucking lied about that, too. (3/12/2016 AT 3:11pm).

So "they" promised that if there were an income tax, tariffs would be eliminated? I guess this is a fact that is so well known that Willis doesn't need to cite a source, huh? Although I must admit that I don't know what he's talking about.

Some background here... the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, was the first time that a peacetime income tax was proposed. There had been an income tax previously (to pay for the Civil War). This time, however, the income tax, "was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions".

So here we DO have an example of tariffs being lowered and that income made up with an income tax. But Wilson–Gorman only REDUCED tariffs. "They" never said the purpose of the bill was to get rid of tariffs. BTW, the income tax was ruled unConstitutional when "the U.S. Supreme Court decided Pollock V Farmers Loan Trust Co, striking down the federal income tax of 1894".

But Willis referred to a bill passed in 1913. This incarnation of the income tax came about after ratification of the 16th Amendment which "allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census".

The Revenue Act of 1913 (the act Willis refers to) "re-imposed the federal income tax... and lowered basic tariff rates from 40% to 25%". Again, nothing about ELIMINATING tariffs here, just lowering them. Looks like Willis is wrong. There was no promise that the income tax would replace tariffs (not that I've been able to verify, at least).

So what the hell is the Hartster talking about? Because only "team members" can comment on his blog (currently) I couldn't submit my question there... so I sent him a message through FaceBook. I have a feeling he won't respond, however.

OST #120

Black Men Are Killing Each Other Over Half Eaten Hershey, 3 Musketeer & Snickers Candy Bars?

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has made this assertion on a number of occassions. Without ever providing any citations that would prove what he's saying is happening on a regular basis. Or ever.

Willis Hart: On the Removal of the Confederate Flag... So, does this (the banishing of an inanimate object) now mean that young black men are going to stop killing each other over foolishness (half-eaten Hershey bars, Air-Jordan Sneaks, a perceived dis, etc.)... (6/25/2015 AT 4:11pm).

To this claim I say WTF is Willis talking about? Perhaps he is referring to things that have actually occurred, but the way he tells it, Black people killing each other for stupid reasons is something that happens on a regular basis. I mean, he has referred to murders over half eaten candy bars (etc) more than once.

Willis Hart: On the "Black Lives Matter" Movement... Maybe it's just my crowd but I don't know a single white person who doesn't think that black lives matter just as much as Caucasian ones do. The folks who HAVEN'T gotten the message are young, black gang-bangers; Mookie, Ray Ray, Dre, Dog, etc. who continue to kill and maim each other over foolishness; half-eaten 3 Musketeer bars, a pair of Air Jordans, some big butted heifer, etc.. Those are the people who we most need to convince. (10/7/2015 AT 8:36pm).

Same claim a 3rd time, although the brand of candy bar is again different.

Willis Hart: On Black Lives Mattering... There's never been an argument from me. IN FACT, being that the black murder rate is fully 6 times that of whites (17.5 per 100,000 versus 2.6 per 100,000) with the perpetrators being 93% other black people, I'm actually quite insulted that this bullshit is being placed not just at my doorstep but the law enforcement community's, too... STOP BLOWING YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT (much of it over foolishness; half-eaten Snickers bars, Air Jordan sneaks, some big-butted heifer, a slight, etc.), PEOPLE. BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!!! (11/18/2015 AT 5:07pm).

So, these gangbangers (Mookie, Ray Ray, Dre, Dog, or some other stereotypical Black man's name) all have pretty serious sweet tooths, I gather. I mean, given the fact that they're killing each other on a regular basis over (differing brands of) chocolate bars. And they're always half-eaten too (which is quite odd, no?).

Perhaps this happened once, twice, multiple times even. But I have an incredibly hard time believing this kind of thing happens on a regular basis. Frankly I find the assertion (never with any citation) offensive as well as racist. It isn't as if a White person has never killed someone for "foolishness".

Yet it's "gangbangers" (a substitution for the n-word?) who have a monopoly on "foolishness" apparently. In Willis' mind, at least. And they REALLY like candy. Is this Willis' way of infantilizing African American men? And, if so, perhaps instead of "gangbanger" he really means "boy"?

OST #83

Willis Hart WTF Re The Rand Paul V Chris Christie Dust-Up During Fox potus Interview

This extremely strange commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart. Strange, in that he (as a Libertarian) sides with the fellow who believes violating the 4th Amendment is "keeping us safe" from "the terrorists" and against the other fellow who is fighting to protect our rights.

Willis Hart: On the Rand Paul Versus Chris Christie Dust-Up at Last Night's Debate... I hate to say this because I a) kinda like the guy and b) tend to agree with him on the issue of surveillance but Mr. Paul last night - not Gene Hackman going after Richard Harris in "Unforgiven" totally out of control enough... Yeah, dude's got a temper. (8/8/2015 AT 9:33pm).

OK, so he "hates to say it"... so why the hell does he? Randal defended himself from an attack by Christie while defending American's 4th amendment rights. Something Willis, as a Libertarian, should be solidly behind. Yet he objects on the bullshit grounds that Randal was "totally out of control" and that "the dude's got a temper".

Huh? I'm not a fan of Randal Paul AT ALL. I'm no fan of Christie either, but on this Randal was right and Christie was way wrong. I side 100 percent with Randal on this issue. And I *thought* Willis did too. He does say he "tends" to agree with Randal. So why attack him for baloney reasons that don't matter one way or the other?

Randal argued his position forcefully. I saw no indication that he was "out of control" or that "the dude's got a temper". But SO WHAT if he did get "out of control" or lose his temper? He was right! That's all that really matters. Maybe Willis thinks it looked bad? Of course it did! But not because of any baloney about Randal being out of control or losing his cool.

It looked bad (to Republicans) because Republicans don't agree with his position. Christie was spewing BS about bulk data collection being needed and a warrant not being the proper way to obtain records because... NINE ELEVEN!! Be afraid! Which the audience applauded.

This is one of the reasons why Randal won't get the nomination. He's in step with the Repubs on abortion, idiotically declaring that life begins at conception and wanting to defund Planned Parenthood (despite being Libertarian and Libertarians usually being pro-choice), but he's out of step with the Repubs when it comes to the surveillance state. At least the other Repubs running for potus, the Fox Nooz interviewers who conducted the "debate" and the audience members who applauded.

Largely it's Libertarians and Progressives who are on the side of the Constitution on this one. Republicans mostly support the surveillance state that began as a response to 9-11 under the gwb administration. And, now that we've got a Democratic president who supports it, it seems the Insider Dems have fallen in line and thrown their support behind the mass data collection that is a blatant violation of our 4th amendment rights. Sadly.

Although Randal seemed to be of the same mind (it's OK if a president of your own party does it), saying that he doesn't trust Obama. I guess he likely said this because he thought Repub voters might come around to his way of thinking by fearmongering re the "lawless" Obama administration? So he didn't say he wouldn't want any executive (regardless of party) to do this?

For the record, recent legislation (the USA Freedom Act) did (thanks to Randal) amend the patriot act so that now it's the telecoms who are bulk collecting our data and only handing it over if the government has a targeted warrant (as opposed to the government collecting and holding onto it. Or a private contractor holding onto it in the name of the government).

Frankly, I don't think this new system is that great either.

"We're taking something that was not permitted under regular section 215 ... and now we're creating a whole apparatus to provide for it", Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said on Tuesday night during a House Rules Committee proceeding. "The language does limit the amount of bulk collection, it doesn't end bulk collection", Rep. Amash said, arguing that the problematic "specific selection term" allows for "very large data collection, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of people, maybe even millions". In a statement posted to Facebook ahead of the vote, Rep. Amash said the legislation "falls woefully short of reining in the mass collection of Americans' data, and it takes us a step in the wrong direction by specifically authorizing such collection in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution". (USA Freedom Act Passes House, Codifying Bulk Collection For First Time, Critics Say by Sam Sacks. The Intercept 5/13/2015).

For the record, Justin Amash is a Republican who endorsed Ron Paul for President in 2012 believes in "limited government, economic freedom, and individual liberty". Sounds like he's a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican like Randal (both are anti-choice, btw).

So, the question here is why does Willis - a "small l Libertarian" who "tends" to agree with Randal Paul (re data collection) - why does the Hartster let that "tend to" agreement drop and go after Randal for his "temper"?

A WTF moment for sure. Beyond that I can't say more, because Willis doesn't. He says he "tends" to agree with Randal, but on this specific issue (one that HE HAS CHOSEN to blog on, mind you) he says nothing. Instead of saying if he agrees with Paul on THIS issue - he focuses on Randal's "temper" and says nothing re our Constitutional rights being violated. Perhaps because Willis is more Conservative than Libertarian? Or maybe he's just a surface thinker?

Video: Chris Christie & Rand Paul spar over NSA during the 8/6/2015 Fox News Republican "Debate". This being one of the few instances of actual debate (3:33).

OST #64